Archived Information

PREPARING TOMORROW’S TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY
Goal: To improve the knowledge and ability of future teachers to use technology in improved teaching practices and student learning opportunities, and to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs.
Relationship of Program to Volume 1, Department-wide Objectives: This initiative supports Objectives 1.4 (a talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom in America) and Objective 1.7 (schools use advanced technology for all students and teachers to improve education) by providing competitive grants to consortia that implement improvements in teacher preparation programs.

FY 2000—$75,000,000 FY 2001—$150,000,000 (Requested budget)
OBJECTIVE 1: STRENGTHEN TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS SO THAT THEY PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY TRAINING IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES. Indicator 1.1 Curriculum redesign: The percentage of funded teacher preparation programs that redesign their curriculum to incorporate best practices in the use of technology in teacher education will increase. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year 1999: 2000: 2001: Actual Performance New program for 1999 Performance Targets New program for 1999 New program for 1999 Baseline to be set in 2001 Status: Unable to judge. Explanation: This is a new program, so performance data are not yet available. Sources: Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually Next Update: December 2000 Formative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2000 Summative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002 Validation Procedures: Evaluation data collection will be verified through on-site monitoring and review and through survey and analyses performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures. Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national level baseline data for this indicator.

PREPARING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY

PAGE A-33

Indicator 1.2 Technology-proficient faculty: The percentage of faculty members in funded teacher preparation programs that effectively use technology in their teaching will increase. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year 1999: 2000: 2001: Actual Performance New program for 1999 Performance Targets New program for 1999 New program for 1999 Baseline to be set in 2001 Status: Unable to judge. Explanation: This is a new program so performance data are not yet available. Sources: Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually Next Update: December 2000 Summative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002 Validation Procedures: Evaluation data collection will be verified through on-site monitoring and review and through survey and analyses performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures. Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national level baseline data for this indicator.

Indicator 1.3 Graduation requirements: The number of funded teacher preparation programs that will require teacher candidates to demonstrate proficiency in the effective use of technology in teaching and learning will increase. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year 1999: 2000: 2001: Actual Performance New program for 1999 Performance Targets New program for 1999 New program for 1999 Baseline to be set in 2001 Status: Unable to judge. Explanation: This is a new program so program-specific performance data are not yet available. However, related national-level data are available from “Technology Counts,” a report issued annually by Education Week. According to “Technology Counts ’99,” 42 states require that teacher preparation programs include technology. Two limitations to these data are that preparation requirements vary widely among states and that inclusion of technology in teacher preparation does not imply that new teachers are proficient in technology. Sources: Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually Next Update: December 2000 Summative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002 “Technology Counts,” Education Week. Frequency: Annually Next Update: Fall 2000 Validation Procedures: “Technology Counts” data corroborated by internal review procedures of an experienced data collection agency. Evaluation data collection will be verified by onsite monitoring and review as well as survey and analyses performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures.

PAGE A-34

PREPARING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY

Targets and Performance Data

Assessment of Progress

Sources and Data Quality
Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees.

Indicator 1.4 Learning resources: The percentage of teacher preparation programs that use Web-based, multimedia learning resources, course materials, and teaching tools will increase. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year 1999: 2000: 2001: Actual Performance New program for 1999 Performance Targets New program for 1999 New program for 1999 Baseline to be set in 2001 Status: No 1999 data, but progress toward target is likely. Explanation: This is a new program, so performance data are not yet available. Sources: Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually Next Update: December 2000 Summative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002 Validation Procedures: Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review as well as survey and analysis performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures. Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national-level baseline data for this indicator.

OBJECTIVE 2: INCREASE THE TECHNOLOGY SKILLS AND PROFICIENCY OF NEW TEACHERS FOR IMPROVED CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION. Indicator 2.1 Technology-proficient new teachers: The percentage of new teachers who are proficient in using technology and integrating technology into instructional practices will increase. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year 1999: 2000: 2001: 2002: Actual Performance New program for 1999 Performance Targets New program for 1999 New program for 1999 New program for 1999 Baseline to be set in 2002 Status: Unable to judge. Explanation: This is a new program so program-specific performance data are not yet available. However, related national-level data are available for this indicator from the NCES report, Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers. According to this report, in 1998, only 24 percent of new teachers (with 0 to 3 years of teaching experience) felt “very well prepared” to integrate educational technology in the grade or subject they taught. Sources: Summative Evaluation. Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002 NCES, Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, 1998 Frequency: Every 2 years Next Update: January 2001

PREPARING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY

PAGE A-35

Targets and Performance Data

Assessment of Progress

Sources and Data Quality
Validation Procedures: Teacher Quality: Data validated by NCES’s review procedures and NCES Statistical Standards. Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review as well as and survey and analysis performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures. Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees.

OBJECTIVE 3: CREATE INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE PREPARATION OF FUTURE TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY. Indicator 3.1 Sustained program activities: At least 35 percent of program consortia members will continue to implement reform in pre-service teacher training for at least 2 years following the termination of Federal funding. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year 1999: 2000: 2001: 2002: Actual Performance New program for 1999 Performance Targets New program for 1999 New program for 1999 New program for 1999 Baseline to be set in 2002 Status: Unable to judge. Explanation: This is a new program, so performance data are not yet available. Source: Summative Evaluation. Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002 Validation Procedures: Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review as well as survey and analysis performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures. Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: ED does not collect national level baseline data for this indicator.

Indicator 3.2 Inter-disciplinary partnerships: The percentage of teacher preparation programs that communicate, collaborate and partner together with schools of arts and sciences on a regular and formal basis will increase. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year 1999: 2000: 2001: Actual Performance New program for 1999 Performance Targets New program for 1999 New program for 1999 Baseline to be set in 2001 Status: Unable to judge. Explanation: This is a new program so performance data are not yet available. Sources: Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually Next Update: December 2000 Formative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2000 Summative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002

PAGE A-36

PREPARING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY

Targets and Performance Data

Assessment of Progress

Sources and Data Quality
Validation Procedures: Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review; and survey and analyses performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures. Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national-level baseline data for this indicator.

Indicator 3.3 K-16 partnerships: The percentage of teacher preparation programs that communicate, collaborate, and partner together with the K-12 community on a regular and formal basis will increase. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year 1999: 2000: 2001: Actual Performance New program for 1999 Performance Targets New program for 1999 New program for 1999 Baseline to be set in 2001 Status: Unable to judge. Explanation: This is a new program so performance data are not yet available. Sources: Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually Next Update: December 2000 Formative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2000 Summative Evaluation Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002 Validation Procedures: Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review, as well as survey and analysis performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures. Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees. ED does not collect national level baseline data for this indicator.

PREPARING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY

PAGE A-37

OBJECTIVE 4: CREATE STATEWIDE CHANGE IN THE PREPARATION OF FUTURE TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY. Indicator 4.1 State teacher certification standards: The number of states that include technology proficiency as a component of their initial teacher certification standards will increase. Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of states that have technology-related requirements as a component of their initial teacher certification standards Year Actual Performance Performance Targets 1998: 15 states 1999: No data available 5 states 2000: 18 states 2001: 20 states Status: No 1999 data, but progress toward target is likely. Explanation: Data from the Milken report includes states that require teachers to meet a technology requirement either through credit hours of coursework or through a performancebased assessment. Data for 1999 are not available from any of the data sources for this indicator. However, 1998 data from the Milken report demonstrate that in addition to the 15 states that currently have technology requirements for certification, 7 states are in the process of adopting standards. This indicates that progress is likely in increasing the percentage of states meeting this goal. Sources: Milken Exchange on Education Technology’s report, Education Technology Policies of the 50 States. Frequency: One-time survey Next Update: Unknown Project Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually Next Update: December 2000 Summative Evaluation. Frequency: Longitudinal Next Update: 2002 Validation Procedures: Education Technology Policies of the 50 States: data supplied by the Milken Exchange on Education Policy; data corroborated by internal review procedures of an experienced data collection agency. Evaluation data collection will be verified by on-site monitoring and review, as well as survey and analysis performed by an experienced data collection agency with internal review procedures. Limitations of Data and Planned Improvements: Performance report data will be self-reported from program grantees.

KEY STRATEGIES
Strategies Continued from 1999 To address the use of effective practices for teacher preparation programs, the program office will encourage the sharing of information among grantees through a peer collaboration process and the development of a grantee Web site. To address reporting requirements, the program office will provide technical assistance to grantees on topics such as evaluation, and it will ensure the accurate interpretation of program activities and requirements. To address the outreach and communication efforts of the Department, the program office will work with professional organizations to promote program goals through participation in national, state, and regional conferences. The program office will also sponsor workshops to help potential applicants learn about the program and facilitate the sharing of information on effective strategies across consortium grantees.

c c c

New or Strengthened Strategies None.

PAGE A-38

PREPARING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY

c c

HOW THIS PROGRAM COORDINATES WITH OTHER FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
To address the issue of evaluation, the program office will continue to work with ED’s Office of Education Technology to coordinate and participate in national conferences such as the Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology: “Evaluation the Effectiveness of Technology.” To address teacher quality, the program office will coordinate with the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program to collaborate on common issues of preparedness, certification, and technology.

CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING PROGRAM GOAL
None.

INDICATOR CHANGES
From FY 1999 Annual Plan (two years old) Adjusted—None. Dropped—None. From FY 2000 Annual Plan (last year’s) Adjusted—None. Dropped—None. New All indicators are new to the FY 2001 Annual Plan.

c

PREPARING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY

PAGE A-39